Is it time for Hillary Clinton to withdraw from the race for President?

Over the past few days an awful lot of bad news about and for Hillary Clinton has come out. First the polls: In New Hampshire, she may well be behind Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders. CNN and Fox polls of Democratic primary voters, released within the past few days show her support below 50% for the first time in this election cycle, including in must-win states Pennsylvania and Ohio. In two short weeks, Sanders halved her 36% lead nationally over him.

Breakdowns of the national polls document that Clinton’s support among women has waned more than it has among men over the past month. National Nurses United – a union which comprises 90% women – has endorsed Sanders lending further support for the notion that Clinton’s firewall of Democratic women may be starting to melt. It is true that the 1.8 million member American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which is also predominantly female, supports Clinton in this election cycle just as it did in 2008 when it sided with her over Barack Obama. But it is also true that AFT’s Randi Weingarten is a longtime Clinton ally who sits on the Board of the Pro-Clinton PAC Priorities USA.

Highly publicized confrontations, orchestrated by #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) in Phoenix and Seattle, with Bernie Sanders do not appear to have blunted his momentum. Indeed, video of the nearly 73-year old Sanders gamely offering to shake hands with two young women in Seattle who proceeded to shout him off the podium may well help his cause in the long run.

Moreover, it now appears that BLM’s most prominent organizer and media promoter Shaun King, who has criticized Sanders aggressively at DailyKos, may be a white man who has been passing as bi-racial. Assuming this is true, the legitimacy of King’s and, by extension BLM’s attacks on Sanders must be questioned. [Correction – King has explained that the white man identified as his father on his birth certificate is not the man he believes is his biological father who was, King says, a light-skinned African-American man.]

In fact, Sanders would appear to have a significant potential upside with people of color, who are least likely to be familiar with him and his record. He has a long and impressive history of championing civil rights, economic justice for all Americans, and, before Clinton did, calling for an end to abusive police practices.

By contrast, Clinton’s support among blacks may have crested. Clinton received positive grades from some supporters for her sit-down with BLM activists and influential New York Times and columnist Charles Blow acknowledged she was “agile and evasive”. Ultimately though, he called her refusal to acknowledge “her and her husband’s role in giving America the dubious distinction of having the world’s highest incarceration rate” “stunning”, “telling”, and “vexing”.

African-Americans tend to be more skeptical than other Americans of the good faith of Israel’s leaders and more angry about that country’s periodic military spasms against the Palestinian people. For nearly thirty years, Sanders has criticized Israeli hardliners and justified his endorsement of Jesse Jackson’s Presidential bid in 1988 by noting Jackson’s support for Palestinian self-determination. Over the past year, he has been upfront in his opposition to Israel’s 2014 attack on Gaza. Again, as African-Americans become more familiar with Sanders, many are likely to support him.

Clinton’s woes are also apparent in ongoing news about her email practices at the State Department which at a minimum violated the applicable Federal regulation and which may be responsible for her recent drop in the polls. Surveying the political landscape two days ago, the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza concluded “maybe Hillary Clinton just isn’t a very good candidate”.

This past Monday Guardian columnist Mary Dejevsky, who calls herself a Clinton “fan”, urged the candidate to “bow out with grace” because the enormous “baggage” she carries would make it impossible for her to govern effectively if she were to prevail in the general election. Dejevsky contends that Clinton’s divisiveness is “not primarily because she is a woman”.

I am not a Clinton fan. I hope she does withdraw and endorse Bernie Sanders. Nevertheless, from her perspective, none of the above, should be enough to cause her to stop a campaign which retains formidable advantages.

But Clinton faces a more daunting problem than falling but still very robust poll numbers, a doubtful commitment to liberal causes, and email peccadilloes. Ultimately, her election strategy is mostly the same as the one that worked so well for her husband – present a relatively, but not outrageously, progressive persona on social issues coupled with a neo-liberal economic agenda.

Such an approach worked well for Bill for several reasons. The people most attracted to his apparently socially progressive stance on issues like gays in the military and choice were highly educated upper middle-class professionals – the kind of people who could and did contribute significantly to both of his Presidential campaigns.

Clinton was also helped in 1992 by the fact that George H.W. Bush had broken his promise not to enact new taxes. This meant that the Republican did not have a lock on top earners concerned solely with after-tax income. Although Clinton did push through a hike in the top marginal tax rate in 1993, he also signed NAFTA, and pushed through welfare reform in his first term, as he had promised to do. This record meant that he could count on considerable support from relatively large elements of the 1%.

Clinton’s faux-populism should have harmed his status with working-class voters and it probably did to some extent. But his personal charm won over many “Bubbas” and “Bubbettes”. Moreover, organized labor was by the early and mid-90s in very difficult straits and reasonably viewed Clinton’s Republican opponents as worse than he was on labor issues.

The political landscape has shifted tectonically since the mid-90s. Some one-percenters are so rich that they can single-handedly finance campaigns. Those who are doing so are united against Clinton and are making it very difficult for her to garner the funds she needs to compete. Sanders who relies on word-of-mouth support and small contributions does not have to worry about attracting or alienating wealthy donors.

To raise sufficient money from the merely super-rich, as opposed to the uber-rich, Clinton must tailor her message at least somewhat to their interests. But, in order to appeal to Democratic primary voters, Clinton must keep her distance from the upper crust. In the age of internet, any wobbles towards corporatism will be trumpeted loud and clear. It is possible a politician as skillful and charming as Bill might have been able to square this circle, but traditional Democrats Americans find Hillary’s personality less compelling.

Is there a way out for Hillary? It’s hard to see it. Her long history of cozying up to moneyed and corporate interests has not led to overwhelming financial support from them but it has led to fragmented support for her from the labor movement. Some liberal activists perceive her moves to the left as feints or insincere. On the other hand, she cannot move right without losing the still very strong support she has from second-wave feminists.

Hillary may still win. On Monday, Nate Silver pegged her chances of winning the Democratic nomination at 85%. But, her poll numbers keep falling, most Americans view her negatively. She is boxed in politically and is facing legitimate questions about her email practices at the State Department. It’s definitely time for her to look back on an extraordinarily productive and successful public life with satisfaction and to consider whether she can now best serve America by supporting a less compromised Democratic candidate for President.

9 Responses to Is it time for Hillary Clinton to withdraw from the race for President?

It’s much too early for Hillary to concede, and if she did Joe Biden would step forward. I’m not sure he would be any better. And if Bernie has a chance, I’d like to see him do so by legitimately beating Hillary (or if necessary, Biden).

Unfortunately for Hillary, the FBI may soon prove she really doesn’t understand tech as much as she should. I give the FBI a fair chance to recover from her thumbdrive or hard drive’s sidetracks at least some emails she’d rather not have made public. Even if the FBI can only determine where an email was routed, it may give them enough so that they can recover the email itself elsewhere. In addition there remains the virtually untapped issue of the Clinton international pay-to-play foundation – that perhaps has primarily served only to park and continue to pay high-priced political operatives under the guise of “charitable work” between campaigns.

Given the growing scandals (that Hillary has been desperately trying to ignore), it begins to look like Trump might be able to trump Hillary. But even if the Democratic party’s corporate power brokers now recognize the threat, I don’t know that it will help an outsider like Bernie – the power brokers may instead call upon Biden or Gore to save their day. Too bad, elections should be only about building a consensus from the voters. I’m not sure how Biden or Gore would fare, but I’d be willing to take my chances pitting Bernie against Trump any day.

Shade – a couple of aspects of O’Malley’s record really trouble me. He shilled for the casino industry bringing casino gambling to Maryland which has been, as expected, very problematic. As Baltimore Mayor, he instituted a “zero-tolerance” policing approach which is, at least, partly responsible for the high rate of arrests and incarceration in Charm City.

Argument is well made. Perhaps Maureen Dowd has already placed a call to David Geffen and Victoria Kennedy. CNN polling last night has the two words most associated with Senator Clinton as liar and untrustworthy. This is a recipe for disaster. It is also ironic, in that she seems to me to be honest, but trust no one apparently. With email gate she has nearly lost single white men. Not good. Bernie would have to get some mojo and win South Carolina, and promise to only serve one term, as would V.P. Biden. A little charisma and idealism would go a long way in the democratic feld- it can be learned. With trustworhines as the central issue in the fall all the republican nominee would need to do to win would be to man up and admit that Obamas has been a good President.

Beginning ~10yrs ago, Moscow-based Kaspersky Labs tried2 damage rival competitor’s reputations by tricking their programs into classifying benign files as malicious. Per 2 former employees, some such attacks were ordered by

(Wednesday, Dec 13. 2017 12:50 AM)

KL’s co-founder Eugene Kaspersky, in part 2retaliate against rivals who he felt were aping his software rather than dev their own. KL’s engineers would take files like common critical drivers & inject bad code into them so they appeared infected. KL would then upload the doctored files anonymously2 VirusTotal flagging them as infected. Other AV engineers would then visit VT & create signatures that would flag all sim files. This often caused their AV programs 2quarantine perfectly good drivers from ppl’s computers causing system problems. http://goo.gl/fssZ1B

I guess it all boils down2 what 1 believes gives meaning to mankind’s life. To me, man will only have significance if he survives the Darwinian nature of the universe in the long term. In only a billion yrs, r sun will have brightened

(Tuesday, Dec 12. 2017 04:59 AM)

enough2 boil the oceans. If man is 2survive, it will only be cuz of his unique intelligence & ability2 fav reshape his enviro. There is nothing else particularly special about man, espec not his ability 2practice cut-throat Darwinistic behaviors. If the nat Darwinian path led2 immortal life, we would see evidence of an entire universe teaming w/life that has survived the ages. We don’t. So man must uniquely fight against the natural Darwinian order & instead build the strongest poss united society in which all individuals & earth’s life forms thrive.

4 Jeff – 1st of all u wrote that I think gov’t should buy everything 4 everybody. Obviously, that’s false. Now u write that I want gov’t 2 buy baseball tix 4 poor kids. I don’t oppose such legislation but my preference is that the City of Baltimore should condition use of its city by O’s upon an agreement by team 2 distribute free or low-cost tix to poor Baltimoreans.

For Hal – You do think the government should buy tickets to baseball games for the less fortunate. What’s the difference between that and a voucher to a restaurant? The point stands. You think the government has the authority to spend someone else’s money on whatever you deem appropriate.

For jeff linder – not everything. I don’t think the gov’t should provide people with yachts or vouchers to eat at restaurants & not at the expensive others since I would b subject 2 same taxes that I support. But it’s easier 2 attack arguments I don’t make.

The EIC has been much abused. Ppl that dont even work r propositioned by dishonest tax preparers who promise ppl they will get a tax refund if they just pay a fee. Self-Emp_Income is declared & the EIC is requested. By law, IRS pays

(Sunday, Dec 10. 2017 06:56 PM)

refunds quick, & only later it discovers the person never paid SEI taxes. The tax preparer & their fee r long gone; the person now owes IRS back the EIC. Woe 2the person that actually recvd need-based benefits (SSI or welfare) during the tax yr, as IRS records now show they had SEI they didnt declare. So welfare/SSI also want their money back, & usually such persons already at poverty level. This is the type of issue I tried 2expain2 Hal re accurate gas tax refunds. Although computerization slowly making this better, such programs rife w/fraud & bureaucratic messes.

Jeff isnt proposing a true GMI. The “earned income tax credit” he mentions already exists – IF u have low-pay job, then u may get a tax rebate. This also much like current Repub proposals 2req work 2get Medicaid. Prob socially

(Sunday, Dec 10. 2017 02:32 PM)

insulated ppl dont recog is there r many that have educational/mental/physical/economic-based issues such that they cant get/hold a job in today’s economy where workers compete w/3rd world. Sometimes ppl like Jeff will have eyes opened if something really bad happens in their lives. Gen working population is always so surprised how few services there really r when it is they that need help – but even then they often hang on2 dogma: Everybody but them (espec those dark “foreigners”) r cheaters/liars & that’s why there is nothing avail 4them when they need it.

Tweeden’s colleague John Phillips /groomed/ her 2release pic; Tweeden had no idea Phillips & Stone were hard right buddies. Arnold says Sean Hannity had wanted the photo since 2007 but she refused him & that Tweeden never wanted Franken fired. Arnold posted email purportedly showing Stone trying2 whip up story2 gossip columnists even b4 Tweeden story aired, though a pseudonym Russian nm was used & Tom has no proof email was Stone’s doing. DC & US will be vacant if we all r held 2such high stds over entire lifetime. We need Al in the Senate. http://goo.gl/oLWfA3

For halginsberg – The government spends about $1T in means tested programs. That’s about $3K per person. For illustration only:. GMI-Earned Income=Refund. That way there is no cost in benefits to working.

For halginsberg – That’s funny Hal. You think it’s someone else’s duty to spend money on things you think are important. I think you should spend your money on what you think is important. Re GMI it’s a workable solution as a replacement for all welfare programs.

For halginsberg – It’s not the federal government’s business to ensure all citizens have health care, a roof over their heads and a warm place to sleep Hal. If you know someone like in dire need why aren’t you helping them?
And yes, I support a guaranteed income.

For jeff linder – I asked u earlier how u propose to ensure all citizens have health care, a roof over their heads, and a warm place to sleep. I think u support a guaranteed minimum income. Is that correct?